MI Law Banning Guns-Mental Health Patient-Overruled

[RoyGBiv]

US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional

A federal appeals court in Cincinnati deemed a law unconstitutional that kept a Michigan man who was committed to a mental institution from owning a gun.
<snip>
“The government’s interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is not sufficiently related to depriving the mentally healthy, who had a distant episode of commitment, of their constitutional rights,” wrote Judge Danny Boggs

Some basic details in the article worth reading.
Didn't want to violate any copyrights by posting too much of the article.

The guy was involuntarily committed for one month almost 30 years ago, following an episode of depression related to a divorce. Michigan has no program (required by law) for him to prove his mental health is restored. The Judge ruled that without such a program, the man is being deprived of his Constitutional rights.

[ELB]

It may be the one of the larger points of this decision is that the 6th Circuit is saying that the SCOTUS, in Heller, indicated that the standard for evaluating laws that appear to infringe on the 2A is "strict scrutiny," and "intermediate scrutiny" should only be used in exceptional cases. The 6th further says that most of the other Circuits have reversed this, they have rendered most of their 2A judgments since Heller using "intermediate scrutiny"...and this is wrong.

If there is a split in the circuits with how 2A cases are decided, maybe SCOTUS will pick up a case and use it to restate (and rebuke the other circuits) that strict scrutiny is THE standard to use?

[Charles L. Cotton]

It's a very good decision, but FoxNews missed the mark by implying that the 6th Circuit struck down the law. That could well be the ultimate result, but at this point, the appellate court remanded the case to the district court for further handling. (The district court had dismissed the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.) Now the trial court must consider the case in light of the 6th Circuit's ruling on constitutionality. If it can't find evidence to uphold the law, then the 6th Circuit Court stated district court should find the law unconstitutional.

The government could ask for a rehearing en banc meaning the entire 6th Circuit Court would hear the case instead of just 3 judges. The government could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, or it could give up if it doesn't prevail in the prevail in the district court. The government won't give up.

Chas.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pd ... 96p-06.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RoyGBiv]

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pd ... 96p-06.pdf

Thanks for the document Charles.

To save folks some reading... (although worth reading if you have time)

The problem, as noted, is that the class of individuals constituting those ever previously
mentally institutionalized is not identical to the class of individuals presently mentally ill.
Ultimately, the government cannot establish that § 922(g)(4) regulates conduct falling outside
the scope of the Second Amendment as it was understood in 1791. We cannot conclude, then,
that the regulated activity is “categorically unprotected.” Greeno , 679 F.3d at 518. History, text,
and tradition, considered alone, are inconclusive.11 Because the government has not met its
burden, we conclude that the Second Amendment as understood in 1791 extended to at least
some individuals previously committed to mental institutions.

<skip to>

we prefer strict scrutiny over intermediate scrutiny. In choosing strict
scrutiny, we join a significant, increasingly emergent though, as yet, minority view that
concludes that as between intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny—the choice that
Greeno requires—the latter is more appropriate for assessing a challenge to an enumerated constitutional
right, especially in light of Heller ’s rejection of judicial interest-balancing

<skip to>

Are previously institutionalized persons sufficiently dangerous, as a class, that it is permissible to
deprive permanently all such persons of the Second Amendment right to bear arms?
It is a difficult question but one that we need not answer in the first instance. Congress
has already determined that the class of individuals previously committed to a mental institution
is not so dangerous that all members must be permanently deprived of firearms. Congress
created a relief-from-disabilities program in which individuals subject to a § 922 prohibition can
regain their firearm rights by showing that they are unlikely to present a threat. See § 925(c).
Because this program extends eligibility to all persons subject to any § 922 prohibition, it alone
might be insufficient evidence of Congress’s determination that the previously institutionalized
are not per se dangerous;

<then later>

whether Tyler may exercise his right to bear arms depends on whether his state of residence has chosen to
accept the carrot of federal grant money and has implemented a relief program. His right thus
would turn on whether his state has taken Congress’s inducement to cooperate with federal authorities in or
der to avoid losing anti-crime funding. An individual’s ability to exercise a “fundamental righ[t]
necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” McDonald, 561 U.S. at 778, cannot turn on such a distinction. Thus,
§ 922(g)(4) lacks narrow tailoring as the law is a pplied to Tyler. The following review of the circuits’ post-Heller
jurisprudence confirms this . We hold that the complaint, as alleged, states a violation of the Second Amendment.

<later>

Section 922(g)(4) goes further than any of the prohibitions discussed above. The statutory prohibition is permanent. It targets
a class that is potentially non-violent and law-abiding. The prohibition, by definition, targets the non-volitional act of being committed.
37 The underlying behavior that prompted the commitment may also be non-volitional. 38 Post-Heller case law is not contrary to the result
we reach today, though a cursory review of the cases might suggest otherwise. Decisions from the other circuits are not only
consistent with concluding that Tyler’s complaint states a constitutional violation but affirmatively support that result.

<later>

[the government] has offered not an iota of evidence that prohibiting the previously institutionalized from possessing guns serves
its compelling interests. In addition to recognizing that many previously institutionalized persons now are not dangerous and thus that a
total ban was not justified, Congress went further. For an entire class of persons, Congress effectively conditioned the ability to exercise
a right “necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” McDonald , 561 U.S. at 778, on whether they reside in a state that has chosen to
participate in a joint federal-state administrative scheme.

<small skip>

Congress may certainly incentivize state action through carrots and sticks , but Congress cannot condition
individual constitutionally protected rights on states’ participation. A state “shall grant . . .
relief” to a person “who will not be likely to act” dangerously.42 § 105, 122 Stat. at 2569–70.
Tyler alleges that he will not present a danger, and he presents evidence to support that claim. If
he lived in a state with a government-certified program, he could potentially regain his Second
Amendment right. Because he resides in Michigan, he can never possess a gun, unless Michigan
chooses to join the federal program. What is at stake is more than just “influencing a State’s
policy choices.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 166 (1992). It is the protection of the
Second Amendment. For these reasons, §922(g)(4)’s mental-commitment prohibition’s
application to Tyler does not satisfy narrow tailoring.

<skip to conclusion>

Tyler’s complaint validly states a claim for a violation of the Second Amendment. The
government’s interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is not sufficiently
related to depriving the mentally healthy, who had a distant episode of commitment, of their
constitutional rights.43 The government at oral argument stated that it currently has no reason to
dispute that Tyler is a non-dangerous individual. On remand, the government may, if it chooses,
file an answer to Tyler’s complaint to contest his factual allegations. If it declines to do so, the
district court should enter a declaration of unconstitutionality as to § 922(g)(4)’s application to Tyler. 44
We REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[The Annoyed Man]

Charles, if you would for the uninitiated..... what does the phrase "Heller ’s rejection of judicial interest-balancing" mean? What is "judicial balancing"?

[RoyGBiv]

Charles, if you would for the uninitiated..... what does the phrase "Heller ’s rejection of judicial interest-balancing" mean? What is "judicial balancing"?

I'm sure Charles will do a better job...

Interest-balancing..... Balancing the governments interests in maintaining law and order against individual liberties.

You can't yell fire in a movie theater... That's a government/public safety interest balanced against a first amendment enumerated right.
However, in this case, the majority opinion argues that Heller and McDonald state that interest-balancing should not apply in this case.

Page 17, last paragraph.

Our choice, then, is between intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny.
Both tests are “quintessential balancing inquiries that focus ultimately on whether a particular
government interest is sufficiently compelling or important to justify an infringement on the
individual right in question.”

See Heller, 554 U.S. at 634–35 (“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been
subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right
takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to
decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.”). This view was
reiterated by the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in McDonald. 561 U.S. at 790–91
(noting that the Heller Court “specifically rejected” “an interest-balancing test”).

and note 8, bottom of P12

8See, e.g., Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244, 1282 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Kavanaugh, J.,
dissenting) (“Heller and McDonald didn’t just reject interest balancing. The Court went much further by expressly
rejecting [the dissent’s] intermediate scrutiny approach, disclaiming cost-benefit analysis, and denying the need for
empirical inquiry. By doing so, the Court made clear . . . that strict and intermediate scrutiny are inappropriate.”)
(emphasis added).

[cb1000rider]

Another sensational title that doesn't seem to have much to do with the actual ruling. Thanks, Fox. This isn't a mentally ill person. This is a person that had a mental health issue 30 years ago.
The alternative here, which is "proving" that you are mentally competent after a diagnosis is actually quite difficult and certainly quite expensive. No one wants mentally ill people to have firearms, but a single diagnosis shouldn't be a lifetime disqualifier.

[ELB]

Another sensational title that doesn't seem to have much to do with the actual ruling. Thanks, Fox. This isn't a mentally ill person. This is a person that had a mental health issue 30 years ago.

The Fox News article linked in the OP isn't titled like that, and doesn't say anything like what you are criticizing it for. In fact, the only mention of "mentally ill" in the article is in the quote from the judge who wrote the opinion, and he wasn't saying that Tyler was mentally ill either. Just the opposite. ??

[ELB]

Right now if a person is convicted of a state felony, but the state through some mechanism restores that person's 2A rights, then he no longer counts as a felon under federal law and that person can buy guns, get a concealed handgun license, etc, and not violate federal law. But not all states do that.

In the case above, the 6th ruled that because the relief or rehabilitation or what-have-you was available through a state mechanism in some states but not the one the man was living, and he couldn't go the federal route because it was unfunded, denying him a firearm because of his mental health commitment amounted to a violation of his 2A rights by the feds because of where he lives, and that's unconstitutional.

So if some felons can have their rights restored by state action, or simply by "operation of [state]law", are the feds violating the 2A rights of felons in states that do not have a mechanism for restoration of rights simply because of where they live?

I know the 6th cautioned that their decision applied only to those who had been involuntarily/temporarily committed in the past but were now OK, and didn't necessarily apply to other classes of "prohibited persons", but it still seems like similar situations are....similar. You were "not OK" in the past, but now (in some states) you are "OK."

[EEllis]

I'm not going to look up the cases but it seems to me this case was in line with several other cases. Basically there has to be a way to challenge and get back your gun rights. There have been other cases in fed court where people have sued and received court orders forcing them to be allowed to purchase firearms. So this isn't new.

[ELB]

I'm not going to look up the cases but it seems to me this case was in line with several other cases. Basically there has to be a way to challenge and get back your gun rights. There have been other cases in fed court where people have sued and received court orders forcing them to be allowed to purchase firearms. So this isn't new.

Actually, I would like you to look up those other cases, I would like to see them. There has not been a way to challenge and get back your gun rights for federal convictions other than seeking a presidential pardon for a number of years. Congress has refused to fund the statutory mechanism for a long time now. I suspect past "challenges" in court have focused more on how the law on prohibited persons was misapplied to an individual, not that the correct application of the law was unconstitutional. Would like to be wrong, so would like to see the cases.

One thing that was certainly new in this case, and of more import than focusing on a particular category of prohibited person, is the Circuit Court's strong statement that strict scrutiny should be the primary standard for assessing the constitutionality of gun laws. The opinion (and other commentaries) have pointed out that other circuits have favored using lesser standards to do this, and as a consequence no federal gun law has yet to be overturned for being unconstitutional since Heller. The Sixth's opinion pretty much states that the Heller established strict scrutiny as the bar, "presumptively legal" didn't mean that all existing federal gun laws are actually constitutional, but that Heller wasn't going to decide them, leaving their evaluation by the district and circuit courts until later using Heller as a guide. Unfortunately most other Circuits have subverted this by using intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny "lite" (or rational basis dressed up as something more).

[EEllis]

I'm not going to look up the cases but it seems to me this case was in line with several other cases. Basically there has to be a way to challenge and get back your gun rights. There have been other cases in fed court where people have sued and received court orders forcing them to be allowed to purchase firearms. So this isn't new.

Actually, I would like you to look up those other cases, I would like to see them. There has not been a way to challenge and get back your gun rights for federal convictions other than seeking a presidential pardon for a number of years. Congress has refused to fund the statutory mechanism for a long time now. I suspect past "challenges" in court have focused more on how the law on prohibited persons was misapplied to an individual, not that the correct application of the law was unconstitutional. Would like to be wrong, so would like to see the cases.

One thing that was certainly new in this case, and of more import than focusing on a particular category of prohibited person, is the Circuit Court's strong statement that strict scrutiny should be the primary standard for assessing the constitutionality of gun laws. The opinion (and other commentaries) have pointed out that other circuits have favored using lesser standards to do this, and as a consequence no federal gun law has yet to be overturned for being unconstitutional since Heller. The Sixth's opinion pretty much states that the Heller established strict scrutiny as the bar, "presumptively legal" didn't mean that all existing federal gun laws are actually constitutional, but that Heller wasn't going to decide them, leaving their evaluation by the district and circuit courts until later using Heller as a guide. Unfortunately most other Circuits have subverted this by using intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny "lite" (or rational basis dressed up as something more).

As I said , no I will not look anything up. And I wasn't referencing criminal convictions because I don't believe the govt is required to do squat. Rather that there needs to be some way to challenge mental health restrictions. If a State doesn't have a way to take someone of the "list" then there have been successful lawsuits in fed court resulting in orders to remove people. If there is a mechanism to remove them then they wouldn't be able to sue in Fed court.

[JSThane]

I maintain that if a person's too dangerous to have access to a firearm, then they're too dangerous to have access to cars, gasoline, lighters, baseball bats, knives, or even opportunities to use their fists and feet on others. In other words, if someone's too dangerous to have access to a firearm, then why aren't they locked up?

This whole "mental illness" thing, is quite frankly, a violation of rights under color of law. Yes, there are people who are mentally unstable to the point they might do something heinous. But this country is not, or at least should not be, a country where people are punished for things they -might- do.

It's a hot button topic of mine.